287(g) Agreements and Local Immigration Enforcement

Section 287(g) of the Immigration and Nationality Act authorizes the Department of Homeland Security to enter into formal agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies, deputizing their officers to perform certain federal immigration enforcement functions. The provision has become the legal cornerstone of a much larger debate over how much state and local governments must — or may — cooperate with federal immigration enforcement. At one end, roughly 150 local agencies have signed 287(g) agreements actively participating in enforcement. At the other, hundreds of jurisdictions have adopted "sanctuary" policies explicitly limiting that cooperation. Federal courts, the Tenth Amendment's anti-commandeering doctrine, and a series of Trump administration executive orders have made this one of the most litigated areas of immigration federalism. For how immigration detention and removal proceedings unfold after an arrest, and for the immigration courts that adjudicate removability, see those pages.

Current Law (2026)

Legal Authority

• 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g) — The core 287(g) provision; authorizes DHS to enter written agreements with state or local law enforcement agencies whose officers, after training, may perform immigration officer functions; requires DHS supervision and agreement terms; limits functions to those specified in the agreement
• 8 U.S.C. § 1357(g)(10) — Preserves local law enforcement authority to communicate with DHS about individuals' immigration status even without a 287(g) agreement — the floor below which Section 1373 operates
• 8 U.S.C. § 1373 — Prohibits any federal, state, or local government entity or official from restricting or prohibiting information-sharing with DHS regarding citizenship or immigration status; subject to ongoing constitutional challenge under the anti-commandeering doctrine
• 8 U.S.C. § 1324a — Employer sanctions provision; underpins E-Verify enforcement and intersects with local enforcement of employment-related immigration violations
• Secure Communities statute (6 U.S.C. § 111 note; DHS appropriations riders) — Mandates sharing of fingerprint data from state and local arrestee bookings with DHS for immigration screening; effectively universal, unlike voluntary 287(g) agreements

How It Works

287(g) Agreements: What They Are

A 287(g) agreement is a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between ICE and a state or local law enforcement agency. Under the agreement, designated state or local officers receive training from ICE and are authorized to perform specific immigration enforcement functions — interrogating individuals about immigration status, detaining individuals for immigration violations, and processing paperwork for removal. The officers act under ICE supervision and must follow ICE policies.

The jail model (dominant): Deputies in county jails screen inmates for immigration status at booking or during incarceration. When a screened inmate is identified as potentially removable, the agency notifies ICE, which may issue a detainer or arrange for transfer to ICE custody. The jail model focuses on individuals already in criminal custody, avoiding the legal and political complications of street-level immigration stops.

The task force model (largely discontinued, revived 2025): Officers work alongside ICE agents in the community conducting immigration enforcement operations — stops, arrests, and investigations outside of jail settings. The Obama administration ended new task force agreements in 2012 citing civil liberties concerns. The first Trump administration revived them; the Obama administration's restrictions remained after Biden took office; the second Trump administration restored task force agreements as a priority in 2025.

ICE Detainers: Requests, Not Mandates

An immigration detainer (Form I-247A) is a request from ICE to a local jail or prison to hold an individual for up to 48 additional hours beyond their release date so ICE can take custody. Detainers are separate from 287(g) agreements — ICE issues detainers to any jail, regardless of whether a 287(g) agreement exists.

Critically, federal courts have held that ICE detainers are requests, not legally binding commands. Local jurisdictions are not constitutionally required to honor them. Multiple circuits have held that holding someone beyond their legal release date based solely on an ICE detainer — without independent probable cause or a judicial warrant — violates the Fourth Amendment. Jurisdictions that honor detainers without judicial authorization face civil liability risk; those that decline detainers face political and (under Trump) federal funding pressure.

The Sanctuary Jurisdiction Landscape

"Sanctuary" is not a legal term of art — it describes a spectrum of policies. Common forms include:

• Detainer non-compliance: refusing to hold individuals beyond their release date based on an ICE detainer alone (requires judicial warrant)
• Information restrictions: limiting what information local officers may share with ICE about inmates' release dates, charges, or locations
• Civil immigration enforcement limits: prohibiting local officers from questioning individuals about immigration status or participating in civil (non-criminal) immigration enforcement
• No-cooperation policies: prohibiting use of local resources for federal immigration enforcement generally

States with comprehensive sanctuary laws include California (TRUST Act, SB 54, AB 32), Illinois (TRUST Act), Washington, Colorado, New York, and New Jersey. These laws establish statewide floors, though individual localities may adopt stricter policies.

The Anti-Commandeering Doctrine

The Tenth Amendment prohibits the federal government from compelling state or local governments to enforce federal law. This principle, established in New York v. United States (1992) and Printz v. United States (1997), means Congress cannot mandate that state officials implement federal programs.

Applied to immigration enforcement, the anti-commandeering doctrine means:

• The federal government cannot legally require local police to arrest or detain immigration violators
• ICE detainers are constitutionally limited to requests
• Conditions on federal grants that effectively coerce states into immigration enforcement may be unconstitutional

The Trump administration's efforts to punish sanctuary cities by withholding federal grants have repeatedly collided with this doctrine. Courts have distinguished between conditions directly related to a specific grant program (more permissible) and using unrelated grants as leverage to compel cooperation (more problematic under South Dakota v. Dole spending clause doctrine).

Section 1373: A Different Issue

8 U.S.C. § 1373 does not require local police to enforce immigration law — it only prohibits local governments from restricting communication with DHS about immigration status information. The distinction matters: a jurisdiction can legally refuse to honor ICE detainers (enforcement) while still being required not to prevent officers from telling ICE when an individual is being released (information). Courts have split on whether Section 1373 itself violates the anti-commandeering doctrine by compelling local officials to communicate with federal authorities. The Second Circuit found it constitutional; other courts have found it problematic in certain applications.

Secure Communities: The Universal Backbone

Since 2013, all jails and prisons in the United States participate in Secure Communities regardless of local sanctuary policies. Under Secure Communities, fingerprints from every person booked into a local jail are automatically shared with FBI and DHS databases. If DHS identifies a potential immigration violation, ICE can issue a detainer or take other enforcement action. Localities can decline to honor the detainer but cannot prevent the fingerprint sharing. This means ICE receives information about virtually everyone booked into local custody — the primary practical limit on ICE action is whether the local jail will cooperate in holding or transferring the individual.

Civil Liberties and Constitutional Concerns

Critics of aggressive 287(g) and local enforcement programs raise several constitutional issues:

Studies of early 287(g) task force programs found that officers targeted individuals based on apparent ethnicity or national origin in violation of the Equal Protection Clause and the Fourth Amendment — Maricopa County Sheriff's Office agreements were terminated after DOJ found systematic racial profiling, and class action litigation has challenged enforcement practices in multiple jurisdictions. Immigration status alone is not a basis for a Terry stop or arrest under the Fourth Amendment: officers cannot lawfully detain someone solely to inquire about immigration status without reasonable suspicion of criminal activity, and this limit applies regardless of any 287(g) agreement.

Aggressive local enforcement also produces documented cases of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents being questioned, detained, or placed in removal proceedings based on mistaken identity or officer error — risk concentrated among Latino residents.

How It Affects You

Undocumented immigrant living in a 287(g) jurisdiction. If you are arrested — even for a minor traffic offense — in a county with a 287(g) jail agreement, your fingerprints will be shared with ICE through Secure Communities automatically. If ICE identifies you, they may issue a detainer requesting that the jail hold you for transfer to ICE custody. In a 287(g) jurisdiction, the jail is likely to honor that detainer. If you are arrested, contact an immigration attorney immediately; in some jurisdictions, attorneys can intervene before ICE takes custody. Know your rights: you have the right to remain silent about your immigration status and to speak with an attorney.

Undocumented immigrant in a sanctuary city. Your city or county may have policies limiting cooperation with ICE detainers and prohibiting local officers from asking about immigration status. However, understand what sanctuary protections do and do not cover: (1) Secure Communities fingerprint sharing still occurs — ICE receives your information if you are arrested; (2) sanctuary policies typically protect you from being held extra time on an ICE detainer, but if ICE shows up at the jail with a judicial warrant, the jail will comply; (3) sanctuary policies do not protect against ICE arrests on the street or at your home. Know the specific policies in your jurisdiction — contact local legal aid to understand what protections actually apply.

Local police officer or sheriff's deputy in a 287(g) county. You have been deputized to perform specific immigration functions under your agency's MOA with ICE. Your legal authority is limited to what the agreement specifies — you cannot exceed those functions. Fourth Amendment rules still govern your conduct: you cannot stop or detain someone based on suspected immigration status alone without independent reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. If your agency's 287(g) agreement authorizes jail screening, your role is limited to that context unless the agreement also covers field operations. Violations of agreement terms or constitutional limits expose both you and your agency to liability.

Local elected official in a sanctuary jurisdiction. Your jurisdiction's sanctuary policies are constitutionally defensible under the anti-commandeering doctrine — you cannot be compelled to enforce federal immigration law. However, Section 1373 constrains one specific area: you cannot direct officers not to share immigration status information with DHS if they happen to have it. More practically, the Trump administration has used federal grant conditions and DOJ civil rights investigations to pressure sanctuary jurisdictions. Review your grant agreements for immigration cooperation conditions; some grants (particularly Byrne JAG law enforcement grants) have been conditioned on cooperation in ways that courts have sometimes upheld. Budget for potential grant losses if you maintain non-cooperation policies.

U.S. citizen or lawful permanent resident who has been questioned about immigration status. You have the right to refuse to answer questions about your immigration status or that of others. You cannot be lawfully detained or arrested based solely on your appearance or perceived national origin. If a local officer with a 287(g) agreement detains you based on immigration suspicion and you are a U.S. citizen or lawful resident, you may have Fourth Amendment and equal protection claims. Document the incident and contact an attorney or the ACLU. Multiple successful civil rights lawsuits against 287(g) agencies have resulted in damages and policy changes.

State Variations

States with sanctuary laws. California's SB 54 (2017) prohibits state and local law enforcement from using resources to investigate, interrogate, detain, or arrest individuals for immigration purposes; the TRUST Act (2013) prohibits honoring ICE detainers unless the individual has been convicted of specified serious crimes. Illinois' TRUST Act (2017) similarly prohibits detainer compliance without judicial warrants. Washington, Colorado, New Jersey, and New York have enacted comparable protections.

States with mandatory cooperation laws. Texas S.B. 4 (2017) prohibits local sanctuary policies and requires local agencies to honor ICE detainers; the law survived federal constitutional challenge in the Fifth Circuit. Florida's Senate Bill 168 (2019) similarly mandates cooperation with ICE. These laws create the reverse dynamic: local sheriffs who refuse ICE cooperation face legal liability and termination.

States expanding 287(g). Following Trump's 2025 executive orders, Texas, Florida, Georgia, and Louisiana moved aggressively to expand 287(g) participation. Some states passed legislation requiring county sheriffs to apply for 287(g) agreements.

State anti-profiling laws. California, Illinois, and several other states have enacted laws prohibiting stops based on race, ethnicity, or national origin, which limit how 287(g) task force operations can be conducted even in participating jurisdictions.

Implementing Regulations

• 8 C.F.R. § 287.5 — Defines the extent of immigration officers' field powers, which 287(g) deputized local officers acquire
• 8 C.F.R. § 287.7 — ICE detainer regulations; defines detainer as a request; requires ICE to provide probable cause information supporting the detainer
• DHS/ICE 287(g) Program policies and standard Memoranda of Agreement — Available on ICE.gov; define specific authorized functions, training requirements, and supervisory oversight for each agreement type
• DOJ Guidance on Section 1373 — DOJ Office of Justice Programs guidance letters interpreting Section 1373 compliance requirements for grant recipients; updated under each administration

Pending Legislation

No-Sanctuary for Criminals Act — Republican-sponsored legislation periodically introduced to mandate detainer compliance nationwide and withhold federal funding from non-compliant jurisdictions; has not passed the Senate as of 2026.

Law Enforcement Trust and Integrity Act — Democratic legislation that would limit 287(g) agreements and impose reporting requirements on ICE detainers; introduced but not enacted.

Detainer Warrant Act — Bills introduced in several Congresses that would require ICE to obtain judicial warrants before issuing detainers, codifying the constitutional standard some courts have imposed; not enacted federally, though several states have passed state-level equivalents.

Recent Developments

Trump Executive Order 14159 (January 20, 2025). Directed DOJ and DHS to withhold grants from sanctuary jurisdictions and to aggressively expand 287(g) agreements. DHS set a goal of reaching 500 active 287(g) agreements. DOJ sent letters to approximately 300 jurisdictions threatening to withhold Byrne JAG and other grants if they did not certify compliance with Section 1373.

Court injunctions on grant conditions. Federal courts in Chicago, San Francisco, and Philadelphia issued preliminary injunctions blocking grant withholding from sanctuary cities, continuing a pattern from Trump's first term. The Seventh Circuit and Ninth Circuit have generally been skeptical of broad grant conditions tied to immigration cooperation; the Fifth Circuit has been more receptive.

Task force model revival. ICE restarted task force-model 287(g) agreements in 2025 for the first time since the Obama administration. New task force agreements in Texas, Florida, and several other states authorize local officers to participate in community enforcement operations alongside ICE agents, a significant expansion of local immigration enforcement capacity.

Courthouse arrest policy reversal. The Trump administration rescinded the Obama and Biden-era enforcement sensitive locations policy that generally protected courthouses, hospitals, and churches from immigration enforcement. Local law enforcement in sanctuary jurisdictions reported increased fear among crime victims and witnesses, reducing cooperation with local police — a noted tension with the 287(g) program's stated public safety rationale.

Sheriff resistance. A number of sheriffs in Republican-leaning jurisdictions declined to apply for 287(g) agreements despite pressure from state governments and the Trump administration, citing resource constraints, community trust concerns, and legal liability from detainer holds. The variation in uptake even within politically cooperative states illustrated that implementation depends heavily on individual agency decisions.